1136 replies to this topic

[Ragamuffin]

you know wiith cetain conditions and factors some fossils then to decomposed its about a gazzilion years and you expect them to find them in your backyard?

Actually, fossils are quite rare, even though there are millions left to be found. About 1 out of every 5 million dead things become fossils, the conditions haveto be just right, which is why so much of our planet's history remains incomplete.

[Ragamuffin]

I don't believe the evolution theory before I see it before my very own eyes.

And I won't believe in your "god" until I see that with my own eyes. POINTS were deducted for this post by Excelsior?

[Opulent Maelstrom]

The question is why wouldn't anyone accept evolution? I had no idea so many people rejected it, but to be honest I really can't take seriously anyone who does. All the facts are laid out right before you; fossils, common characters in parental organisms, etc. There is no explanation or proof as to why any life form would just appear out of thin air, but there's plenty of them to backup evolution.Also, don't oppose science and religion, they have nothing to do with each other. You can believe in god and accept evolution all the same. Like cainad said, there's no such thing as believing in evolution, either.

[Lucky_Lungs]

Better question...Who the hell would believe the various ways religions describe how we came about?Easily manipulated people.That goes for most things though...I guess evolution is difficult to believe as well though, eh?So I'm not sure tbh...

[Ragamuffin]

Now, now. Let's think abou this. God is part of religion. You have to have a little faith. Evolution is supposedly science. You're supposed to have a great deal of evidence before you believe a theory. I am yet to see the piece of evidence that proves evolution.

I have to have faith? No, I really don't actually. Maybe you do, but it doesn't mean that I, or anyone else does. As for your "proving" evolution, look at all the earlier posts, would you? I even said that neither one could be fully proven nor disproven. But the fact remains, we at least have evidence of evolution, and I have yet to see anything that shows proof of a higher power.

[Huang Fei Hong]

I think the world needs a new interpretation on the theory of evolution in general. A lot of points have been brought up and struck down in this thread but I'll make mention of the whole fossil debate first since I was a paleontology nut in my younger days.Quoted for truth:

Actually, fossils are quite rare, even though there are millions left to be found. About 1 out of every 5 million dead things become fossils, the conditions haveto be just right, which is why so much of our planet's history remains incomplete.

People have already noted that it takes certain conditions for fossils to form. You can't make judgements for or against evolution based on an incomplete fossil record. However, the fossil evidence does seem to help evolutionists more in the fact that there are a number of creatures that have died out that no longer exist which certainly aren't covered by the Bible, and they seemed (by geological and archeological evidence at least) to have come a great deal before humans have ever made an appearance. So much for 7 days.So what, if not fossil evidence, can we look to as an example for the proof of evolution at work? Well, for one we have to think more on a genetic level. First we have to take the traditionally studied (we'll get to epigentics later since it's relatively a novelty, especially for those whose highest education in biology/genetics is from high school) means for genetic variance into consideration. In fact, the only thing that we're actually taught as a source for genetic variance in high school is...well radiation. Let me know if you find something else in those textbooks for the source of genetic variance. I haven't been back there in ages. Breeding is of course the other common source, but that's only within the same species and well there's not much on the info of where the source stocks for genetic firsts come from there. Basically we're working with very little. Sometimes mutations make it into the species, sometimes it doesn't. Yadda yadda.Epigenetics is...well...genetics with a twist. Boiled down, it states that certain traits may be exhibited from a hidden genetic repository if the organism is subjected to certain conditions. Variations within that scope may also cause progeny to be predisposed to have those traits readily available, even if the previous generation, having been exposed to said condition, did not exhibit the trait (something of a delay perhaps). More information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....iki/EpigeneticsThe easiest example to use in showing the mechanics of evolution (in this case peripatric adaptation, with a few twists) that I can readily come up with is sickle cell anemia and of course malaria. Obviously, the normal Joe Shmoe going into sub-Sarahan Africa (or other needs to be damned careful not to catch malaria. Not so for those with a certain recessive gene. Of course, two of that same gene is considered a bad thing. Of course, this trait is mostly limited to those who are decended of certain regions. What about the people whose lineage can't be traced back there but still have that gene? Mystery? Or perhaps a remnant of an outdated period in human history? Regardless, the source of the gene points to evolution. However, whether the cause is accidental and mutational or epigenetic, we cannot be sure. I'm fairly certain there's not many normal group of non-sickle cell human beings willing to live and start civilation in a malarial region of the world just to see if their progeny manage to develop the gene out of the recesses of a theoretical totipotential genome pool. However, regardless, if normal survival of the fittest rules apply, then if that group of humans do not develop said traits in breeding epigenetically and they don't happen upon some mutation to counteract malaria, they will soon be excluded from the gene pool and that is part of the natural elimination process of evolution. Similarly, if they do manifest traits to combat malaria in future generations, then they've managed to stay in "the game" so to speak.However, this is merely a case of small scale evolution creating minor deviations within a species. How then would one entirely different species deviate from another? Is it a graduation of minor deviations and heavy regionalizations? Or does speciation occur with some major mutation causing incapatibility with previous generations? I think what everyone is actually opposed to is the latter. We (the human species) can't suddenly have been birthed hairless from a monkey, it makes no sense. What then would we be able to procreate with if we're suddenly no longer a monkey, but a man? Speciation must have been excruciatingly gradual. I think the time frame that the nay sayers are considering in their minds is perhaps a bit too small to have provided the proper duration for one species to have come from another.Archaeologists specifically confront and investigate the human prehistory and the evolutionary stages assocated with our advent as a species. For the sake of furthering (I know how creationists are opposed to their findings but bear with me regardless) this discussion we'll assume they have found certain INTERVAL stages in the human evolutionary chain. Not all of these supposed primate variations were necessarily part of that chain (in all likelihood any number of them could have been discontinued and excluded from the actual chain). They aren't necessarily in order either and they CERTAINLY don't compse a full and complete set by any means. However, they DO point to a progression in species.In sum, there are those who try to discredit the concept of evolution as a whole by pointing out major holes in the fossil records and that certainly is a cause for doubt. However, taking more specific cases into consideration and examining speciation on smaller scales (like certain dinosaurs progressing into avians) one can certainly not deny the possiblity that evolution may carry continue to hold even more water as more of this so called "fossil evidence" is collected.As a final note, evolution need not necessarily be Darwinian. Epigenetics certainly brings a whole new spin on things and along with a few other recent developments brings Lamarckian evolution back to the table, but it is certainly still ridiculous on its own. Also, the Baldwin effect is certainly observable. Don't just count out evolution for what Darwin didn't cover.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 14 March 2007 - 08:23 AM.